That's a great piece of video.

"I will personally go into their Congressional districts and make sure every voter knows what they're doing."

That's your pressure point, Ezra.

As stated in the previous thread, this is a trick only the Republicans have tried in the past 40 years. It's foreign to all of the instincts of the Democratic Party at the moment. We need to relearn how to do it.

-----

And tangentially, I actually find it slightly disquieting to have someone running for President who's thought through the politics of governing in a way that I would do.

I expect politicians to be several degrees dumber on strategy than I am.

Ezra's question, basically "how do we win?" gets to the heart of why American liberalism is impotent.

There can be no meaningful progressive politics without the social-democratic ideal. Enduring progressive victories require organization "from below." Without the labor unrest of the '30s there would have been no New Deal, without the SNCC kids getting their heads busted open by police batons, there would've been no Civil Rights or Voting Rights acts.

The question shouldn't be, "how will John Edwards save the us," the question should be: how can we build a mass movement for social and economic justice and can a John Edwards administration play be an ally is that struggle?

I think the confusion lies in the fact that we would like to believe the Presidency is about representing all interests. But, that's a lie we have added to politics. The president must choose which interests he or she will represent, and fight for those interests. Adrian is right- it's about where the various candidates choose to ally themselves in terms of interests. There is nothing wwrong with pandering so long as they are pandering to us rather than them.

the question should be: how can we build a mass movement for social and economic justice

I have no fracking clue how we can do that, and I've spent way too long thinking about it. But why do we necessarily need such a thing? Surely massive social unrest isn't the only way to get things done. Surely other countries have passed progressive reforms through the normal political process, without extraordinary events like those of the 30s and 60s in the US.

And clearly at least some meaningful progressive reforms can be enacted in the US without mass struggle. Gay rights have come a long way. Massachusetts' UHC plan wasn't the result of a popular protest movement, AFAIK.

There's no such thing as a "mandate" or else we would already be withdrawing from Iraq as a result of the 2006 election. The only way Edwards or anybody else is getting substantial change through Congress is if there are at least 60 Democratic Senators as a result of next year's election.

Sorry, Ezra, I like Edwards too, but none of this matters. He can't get elected. He's made a bunch of missteps campaigning against his fellow Dems, which means the VRWC would have him for lunch. The Dems can't afford to nominate him for that reason.

becky: what are some of the missteps? (Just curious). You mean the haircut stuff?

Edwards is enunciating the classic "outside-in" style of Presidential leadership, which no Democratic president has used in a very, very long time. I've always been a bit bewildered why.

"Edwards is enunciating the classic "outside-in" style of Presidential leadership, which no Democratic president has used in a very, very long time. I've always been a bit bewildered why."

Because it's time for Democrats to take back being the majority electoral coalition in this country. I know it's been a long time since 1968, but all the conditions are present for us to play smashmouth politics again.

I'm a bit bewildered why no one else running has realized this.

"I'm a bit bewildered why no one else running has realized this."

because you are asking them to think beyond what preceeded them. they grew up as politicans with reaganism in its ascendency. it takes courage to think beyond the obvious strategy. neither obama or clinton are offering a new strategy. just their take on the tried and true mixed in id politics.

On the plus side, a lot of people who built mass social movements in the past weren't 100% sure that they knew how to build them either, but they tried anyway, and by a combination of principle, strategy, and luck, sometimes it worked.

PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FINANCING IS THE KEY TO EVERYTHING.

And Edwards will do it.

The other two? Obama perhaps. Clinton most definitely not.

That's enough for me, right there. One of the three has repeatedly stated it will be a PRIORITY of his first term to pass public campaign financing for federal officeholders.

You do that, and the rest of the issues get decided on who has the best argument. Not who has spent the most money on a given politician.

EVERY DEMOCRAT SHOULD SUPPORT THIS. Only one of our major Presidential candidates consistently does. That's why he should be the nominee.

Hard questions. Simple answer: Edwards in 2008.

Edwards is enunciating the classic "outside-in" style of Presidential leadership, which no Democratic president has used in a very, very long time. I've always been a bit bewildered why.

Not that long a time; remember the "Man From Plains?" OK, you can argue that Carter was a poor leader, but he did run as an outsider out to change Washington. Washington, as I recall, was highly resistant to being changed, and Carter, despite his earnestness and principles, hardly made a dent.

Well, other industrialized countries have made all kinds of sensible reforms, but these have usually been accomplished by ideologically defined social democratic/labor parties and movements. Tommy Douglas was a socialist, Clement Attlee was a socialist (of a sort). Basically, I think it takes sturdier stuff than American-style do-gooder liberalism to win those kinds of reforms.

Certainly, the gay rights movement went through a long period of politically necessary militancy and radical agitation before establishing itself as a "respectable" political lobby.

The Road Warrior

I think the Newsweek article reveals why I can't support John Edwards. True he certainly hasn't had the easiest life, and he's had more than his share of tragedy and hardship. But none of these things qualify him as a visionary leader who can take this country in a new direction.

Here's a guy who paid his dues, worked to pull himself out of the working class. He wasn't the best athlete, and he wasn't the best scholar, he did it through hard work, and he deserves to enjoy the fruits of his labor. He wasn't the best lawyer, because if he had been, Edwards would have ended up working for corporate America, because corporate America makes a point of buying up all the best lawyers, they like to win.

So Edwards had to travel a more difficult route on his road to success, and he's left the middle class far behind on that journey. Unfortunately for his prospects as the People's representative, he has achieved elite status in America, and in America there's no going back. He didn't decide to dedicate himself to public life in his youth, he was converted by tragedy, and I'm always skeptical of those who have been converted. George Bush was one of the converted.

Basically what I'm saying is that the path you choose from the beginning, and your ability to hold to that path is a measure of character. Those who look down at the road they're on at some point in their life, and choose to go off in a different direction, for good or ill, there is a measure of inconsistency with such people, a measure of doubt within themselves, doubt about who they are and what they should be doing with their lives. I don't condemn such individuals, such change certainly takes courage, but I don't want them figuring out who they are on my time, as my representative.

When I look at John Edwards, I see a guy who says all the right things, and is apparently sincere, but I also see a guy who seems to have something to prove, to himself and those around him. And I don't have time for that and I don't think the people have time for that either, because that's a personal journey that detracts from your commitment to the people. I believe that within a democracy, if a leader is to have any hope of achieving true greatness within this context, then the interests of the people must at some early point in their lives become the paramount concern.

I think Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi were such examples, as was Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy, their commitment to the people led ultimately to their own destruction, and that's what you have to be prepared to accept, that you will likely end up sacrificing your very life when you make this commitment to the people. All of these men had great ambition, but those personal ambitions were by necessity shaped and molded around the People's interests, and their good. I believe such commitment from our leaders is all important in democracy. I see this quality in Barack Obama, I believe he has the potential to be such a leader, and unfortunately I honestly just don't see that potential in John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

The people of a democracy are demanding and ravenously all-consuming bunch, we selfishly want it all from our leaders. We expect them to give their last full measure of devotion to us, and place the concerns of their own family and themselves well behind our collective need. It's not fair, and it's not kind, but that's the way it is, and in my view it's the only way you can keep true democracy alive. The system, by its very nature, at some point requires the ultimate sacrifice, it requires the blood of true patriots to keep the tree of liberty growing and vital. And this is the very thing that makes democracy superior to all other forms of government, the willingness of individuals to lay down their lives for the survival of an ideal, a belief. This sacrifice must be made within the halls of government just as it is on the battlefield. In fact the willingness to make that sacrifice by a president and the lowliest meanest number of our society are mutually dependent upon one another. It is the willingness of the individual to sacrifice that at the end of the day makes us equal, perhaps more than any other attribute.

Unfortunately the Democratic Party has been unable to produce such a leader in recent times, and the people know this, and that's why we have refused to get behind the candidates the party continues to present us with, and that's why the Republicans have succeeded where we have failed. Their candidates have come closer to meeting the requisite requirements of sacrifice and belief, albeit a warped and distorted vision which is hardly recognizable. But so thirsty are the people for a drink of the cool clear waters of genuine leadership, that when deprived of it for so long like men lost in the desert, we find ourselves willing to drink any polluted swill presented before us, so desperate are we to have that thirst satiated.

George Bush may be a pathetic excuse for a leader, but he at least appeared to be a candidate willing to make the requisite personal sacrifices required by the people. Just take a look at him these days, look how he has aged over the last seven years, the burden has put at least 20 years on the man. Unfortunately his vision for America was one that served the interests of a very small minority, a minority which I have no doubt feel they have done quite well by him. He did exactly what those who put him in office wanted him to do, while the interests of the majority and the nation were sacrificed.

But their time is quickly coming to a close, and now it's our turn to put a candidate in office who will do what is best for the majority of Americans and the interests of the whole nation, and we cannot afford to put anyone in office whose commitment is anything other than absolute.

Obama 08

PS I think Chris Dodd may have what it takes is well, I'm watching him on the Senate floor right now, Mr. Dodd goes to Washington, go Chris!!!

Very well said Aaron B Brown.

One thing that worries me about Edwards is the shift his rhetoric will have to take in the general election if he manages to become the Dem nominee. How can he possibly continue to go so harshly after corporations and the greedy rich in a national campaign? If he does he'll be pilloried as a "class warrior" and a "socialist" by the MSM. If he moderates his rhetoric, I worry they'll play clips from the primaries and call him a flip-flopper. Either choice has negative implications.

The positive of Obama is that his message will not have to change one iota. He will have the benefit of consistency and authenticity. Look at the last two Dem candidates and why they lost: Gore and Kerry lost because they were viewed as inauthentic and wavering in their beliefs. Life-long consistency is the most important quality to a presidential candidate, and no one can touch Obama on that.

I respect Obama. But as a Chicagoan, I know that tales of his incorruptible "consistency" are exaggerated.

Obama's God-talk is entirely bullshit, that's simply a fact. Obama was once a friend of the Palestinians, he's toned that down for sure! I prefer the old Barack Obama.

JT made a good point about the message and the messenger in another thread. That is extremely overlooked in this entire change debate. To get change you have to have both and the most blatant example and his weakest link is Health Reform. You are going to have a hard time finding many physicians willing to back anything related to healthcare reform, if it has his name on it. They have to be onboard or it doesn't work. He is the only candidate in either party that galvanizes such strong support against whatever he proposes in that group. One ad blows him out of the water. I can see it now, in an ad filmed at the Mayo Clinic or any hospital close to you. "Who are you going to trust on healthcare Dr. John Doe your friendly neighborhood Pediatric Cardiothoracic Oncologist or the 400 dollar haircut, malpractice attorney?" Case closed and that's something he can't overcome.

No one interest group's support, including the AMA's, is absolutely vital to passing healthcare reform.
What you need is 50/218.

"Why does a group supposedly sworn to keep the good of the patient as the highest priority continue to want 8.5 million little childredn to go without healthcare?" President John Edwards telling the Society of Pediatric Oncology to go fuck themselves.

"The people of a democracy are demanding and ravenously all-consuming bunch, we selfishly want it all from our leaders."

Oh, F-that. I just want him to get up in the morning and and go to court, not put up a cross and plaster himself on it.

He wasn't the best lawyer, because if he had been, Edwards would have ended up working for corporate America, because corporate America makes a point of buying up all the best lawyers, they like to win.

I can't evaluate Edwards' skill, but this is an amazingly stupid argument.

Saying anyone that is a really good lawyer would choose to go into corporate law is about the most inane, pseudo market oriented thing one could say.

I had several good friends who performed very well in law school and were offered great entries into various corporate law firms, and yet they chose to go into public service law because that's what they wanted to do.

The comment someone made about Edwards as a lawyer strikes me as some stupid comment you might hear from a middle level of associate at one of the Big firms trying to justify his status rather than understand the nature of the legal industry.

Not every lawyer wants to work for BIGLAW. There are huge disadvantages to working for them. Some of which includes the great majority of lawyers at such firms aren't able to work entire cases or make the money that Edwards was able to make as a plaitiffs lawyer. Often big firms maybe corp defense. You may also not want to go into certain practice areas or you have a passion for certain areas, which if you are Big Law they normally pick that for you and you have to fight to change later.

Piece of advice- if you are able to work cases and present arguments as effectively as Edwards has done and produce the wins he produced- by any stretch of the imagination- you are a great attorney. Truly bizzare to even read someone quesiton this.

Numbers,
I think you are underestimating the power that a group of unified physicians would present. He is a lightning rod and the only one that brings them together against him. Dividing groups is how you pass reform not make them stronger than they have ever been. So he tells the docs to fuck off in your words. The docs say we will see your 8.5 million as soon as we all get back from vacation whenever we decide to come back. You can't MANDATE that I show up for work. Or if they don't want a frank shut down they could say I'll take ER call but you know what I'm only going to see 5 patients today in the office instead of 50. You can't MANDATE that I work fast.